That's correct. They're not listed as gluten free, nor did the box state that they were gluten free. (It wasn't quite the same box design that's shown on their site, by the way, so their site may not be completely up to date - probably they just didn't bother to update the picture).
What the box did say was "Wheat Free", right on the front, at the top. I don't see how they could label it gluten free, because some celiacs are sensitive to oat gluten, and oats is routinely included in the list of grains classified as causing problems for gluten sensitive individuals, (wheat, rye, barley, and oats).
I'm guessing that the sources you list, don't label their oats as gluten free either, do they? They probably label them as wheat free. Or am I wrong?
I'll look for some pure oat meal, the next time I get to the HFS.
Tex
Observations On My Experiment Eating Oats
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
No not wheat free, the sources list as gluten free.
mle_ii wrote:Here's one source of GF oats:
http://www.glutenfreeoats.com/
Not sure if it's the same product, but here's another source:
http://giftsofnature.net/Merchant2/merc ... _Code=CGFO
And here's another one:
http://creamhillestates.com/en_home.php
Mike,
IMO, (and this is just my opinion, but it's based on solid evidence), those guys are just playing cruel games with semantics, because they're taking advantage of most people's ignorance of cereal chemistry, (and there are precious few cereal chemists in this world, relatively speaking).
Technically, they are correct with that claim, because only wheat contains the storage protein, (prolamin), gluten. (Actually the offending prolamins are glutenin and gliadin, not just gluten.) This is deceptive, though, by omission, because they fail to recognize and declare the prolamins in oats, which, in my opinion, should be considered to be a labeling violation. IOW, they are taking advantage of a loophole in the labeling law, which fails to spell out requirements for the other problematic prolamins.
Barley does not contain gluten either, technically, instead, it contains the storage protein hordein, and it is the hordein that celiacs react to. Rye does not contain gluten either, instead it contains the storage protein secalin, and it is the secalin that celiacs react to.
By the same token, oats, (as long as it is pure), does not contain gluten either. Instead, oats contains the storage protein avenin, and it is the avenin that some celiacs react to. Note that oat prolamins comprise only about 10-15% of the total protein in oats, which is much less than in wheat, barley, or rye. This in itself, is a primary reason why some celiacs do not react to it. IOW, some celiacs have higher reaction thresholds, (or lower sensitivity thresholds), so that they can tolerate the relatively small amounts of avenin in oats.
Those companies can call their oats gluten free if they choose to do so, (unless/until some legislative body closes that loophole), but they certainly cannot call it avenin free, and avenin is the prolamin in oats that is equivaent to the glutenin in wheat.
At least that's the way I see it. What are your thoughts on the relationship of the various prolamins, and the way they're handled, (or ignored), in the ads for various so-called gluten free products? Are those ads fair to people who are sensitive to avenin, but don't have any significant knowledge of cereal chemistry? I don't think they are, and the fact that I've just failed a six-week trial of oats, doesn't help their case any, in my view.
Tex
IMO, (and this is just my opinion, but it's based on solid evidence), those guys are just playing cruel games with semantics, because they're taking advantage of most people's ignorance of cereal chemistry, (and there are precious few cereal chemists in this world, relatively speaking).
Technically, they are correct with that claim, because only wheat contains the storage protein, (prolamin), gluten. (Actually the offending prolamins are glutenin and gliadin, not just gluten.) This is deceptive, though, by omission, because they fail to recognize and declare the prolamins in oats, which, in my opinion, should be considered to be a labeling violation. IOW, they are taking advantage of a loophole in the labeling law, which fails to spell out requirements for the other problematic prolamins.
Barley does not contain gluten either, technically, instead, it contains the storage protein hordein, and it is the hordein that celiacs react to. Rye does not contain gluten either, instead it contains the storage protein secalin, and it is the secalin that celiacs react to.
By the same token, oats, (as long as it is pure), does not contain gluten either. Instead, oats contains the storage protein avenin, and it is the avenin that some celiacs react to. Note that oat prolamins comprise only about 10-15% of the total protein in oats, which is much less than in wheat, barley, or rye. This in itself, is a primary reason why some celiacs do not react to it. IOW, some celiacs have higher reaction thresholds, (or lower sensitivity thresholds), so that they can tolerate the relatively small amounts of avenin in oats.
Those companies can call their oats gluten free if they choose to do so, (unless/until some legislative body closes that loophole), but they certainly cannot call it avenin free, and avenin is the prolamin in oats that is equivaent to the glutenin in wheat.
At least that's the way I see it. What are your thoughts on the relationship of the various prolamins, and the way they're handled, (or ignored), in the ads for various so-called gluten free products? Are those ads fair to people who are sensitive to avenin, but don't have any significant knowledge of cereal chemistry? I don't think they are, and the fact that I've just failed a six-week trial of oats, doesn't help their case any, in my view.
Tex
Doesn't mean you didn't react to oats Tex, but here's some more data.
No observed local immunological response at cell level after five years of oats in adult coeliac disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum
No observed local immunological response at cell level after five years of oats in adult coeliac disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum
OBJECTIVE: Our earlier 5-year follow-up study produced the first evidence to show the long-term safety of oats as part of a coeliac diet. The objective of the present study was to clarify its applicability by analysing local cellular immunological responses after 5 years' consumption of oats by adult coeliac patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two coeliac patients took part in an earlier oats intervention study for 6-12 months. Twenty-two of these patients originally consumed oats as part of their gluten-free diet. During the 5-year follow-up 10 patients had felt uncertain about the safety of long-term consumption of oats and gave up this part of their diet. Finally, 12 of the 22 patients consumed oats for the whole 5-year period. The control group consisted of the remaining 20 coeliac patients using a strict, conventional, gluten-free diet without oats. Intraepithelial CD3, alphabetaTCR (alphabetaIEL) and gammadeltaTCR (gammadeltaIEL) T cells were counted after specific staining of small intestinal biopsy specimens. RESULTS: There were no differences in the densities of CD3, alphabetaIEL and gammadeltaIEL T cells between the oat and the control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of oats included in the gluten-free diets of patients with coeliac disease does not stimulate an immunological response locally in the mucosa of the small intestine.
Hi Mike,
Yes, I've seen that article. I don't see how they can draw that conclusion:
Tex
P S See my P S in my last post in the "Vitamin K" topic.
Yes, I've seen that article. I don't see how they can draw that conclusion:
They only monitored T cell reactions. Why would it have to be a T cell reaction?CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of oats included in the gluten-free diets of patients with coeliac disease does not stimulate an immunological response locally in the mucosa of the small intestine.
Tex
P S See my P S in my last post in the "Vitamin K" topic.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Well, her you go Tex, yet another oats study recently. Seems it's not really so easy to figure this out. :(
In vitro tests indicate that certain varieties of oats may be harmful to patients with coeliac disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum
In vitro tests indicate that certain varieties of oats may be harmful to patients with coeliac disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum
Background: The presence of oats in gluten-free diet is controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate if different varieties of oats exert different toxicity in coeliac disease. Methods: Three varieties of oats were tested by two in vitro assay based on the known ability of peptic-tryptic digests of coeliac-active proteins to agglutinate K562 cells and to disrupt lysosomes, respectively. Results: Avenins from the Italian variety Astra and the Australian variety Mortlook were much more active than the Australian variety Lampton. Gliadin, digested in the same way, certainly displayed more activity than all three avenins, but rice (var. Roma) did not have measurable activity. Conclusions: The results indicate that some varieties of oats may be potentially harmful to individuals with coeliac disease and therefore should be excluded from the gluten-free diet required to maintain good health in coeliac disease. It is important to realize that constant, small amounts of active proteins in the diet, such as certain avenins, may prevent complete recovery of the intestinal mucosa in this disease.
Doggone it Mike,
You almost had me convinced that I was flogging a dead horse, and then you come up with that article. LOL. That's interesting, isn't it, and both those articles are brand new. I guess it just goes to prove once again, that things are rarely/never as simple as they seem.
Thanks.
Tex
You almost had me convinced that I was flogging a dead horse, and then you come up with that article. LOL. That's interesting, isn't it, and both those articles are brand new. I guess it just goes to prove once again, that things are rarely/never as simple as they seem.
Thanks.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
It's probably the same thing as the problems with wheat. We've changed the structure of the wheat proteins so much through selection/engineering that it's not what nature first created.
My guess is that if mess with a protein source enough, any source for that matter, you will end up with a protein that will cause the human body problems. This all goes back to my theory that folks with celiac were selected as they were the ones that lived through a disease (virus most likely). Now that we've messed with these proteins enough we've created something that looks to the body as if it's this virus again and our body fights it off, but it's not a virus and never goes away. That is unless we stop eating it.
Mike
My guess is that if mess with a protein source enough, any source for that matter, you will end up with a protein that will cause the human body problems. This all goes back to my theory that folks with celiac were selected as they were the ones that lived through a disease (virus most likely). Now that we've messed with these proteins enough we've created something that looks to the body as if it's this virus again and our body fights it off, but it's not a virus and never goes away. That is unless we stop eating it.
Mike